Fetch live aircraft positions by callsign (such as UAL123) from a self-hosted Velocity instance to locate and track a specific flight.
Live aircraft by callsign (e.g. 'UAL123').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cs | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does very little. The word 'Live' does signal a current snapshot rather than historical data (a useful contrast to track_history), but there is nothing about data freshness/latency, coverage limits, rate limits, or what happens when the callsign is unknown or ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded fragment with zero padding and the example inline where it is needed. It is arguably undersized, but that shortfall is better attributed to completeness than to verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Still, for a tool with no annotations and one undescribed parameter, an agent is left guessing about live-ness, empty results, and which of the many aircraft-related siblings to prefer. Minimum viable rather than complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter is named only 'cs' at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it does so by mapping 'cs' to callsign and giving a format example. However, it omits matching behavior (exact vs partial), case sensitivity, and whether flight number or ICAO callsign form is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific resource (live aircraft) and the identifier key (callsign), with a concrete example ('UAL123'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings adsb_by_hex/adsb_by_registration/adsb_by_type by naming the lookup key, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as adsb_by_hex, lookup_aircraft, query_aircraft, fr24_search, or track_history. The only guidance is implicit: you must already have a callsign.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.